aj_rock

What I'm about to say may be construed as racially offensive to some. Please realize that it is simply empirical evidence that has significant impact on determining characteristics of different racial populations. If it makes you feel better, consider it a property of genetics and nothing else. Simply put; someone of one racial background tend to store bodyfat differently than those of other backgrounds. The same way that you don't see men and women with similar body shapes, you also see differences in body fat patterning amongst differing ethnic backgrounds. So what patterns can we expect to see? By far the most common amonst all populations is tire-type; a pre-disposition for storing fat outside the abdominal cavity. This is actually NOT the worst place to store fat as you'll soon see. An imbalance between ease of storage and difficult removing means that most body-fat must be removed from all other areas before this area will lean out. The only plus side is that once this is lean enough, SHOULD you start putting fat back on again, it won't necessarily go straight here. In other words, it's easier to get lean the second time (or just not get fat...). Another one that is most commonly seen in some caucasian backgrounds is storage BEHIND the abdominal wall, aka they store excess visceral fat. This is absolutely the worst place to store fat. You can look pretty skinny and still end up with an increased incidence of diabetes due to visceral ab fat; it's a problem in Britain. Yet another one seen in populations in or descending from Africa is gluteal storage; they get the junk in the trunk. These populations can have higher body fat %, but still look slim/have six packs because that just ain't where the fat is stored. My knowledge of asian populations isn't quite as clear, but my best guess would be that they store fat all-body pretty well. Everyone who isn't asian should be very jealous, as they also exhibit the least amount of increased body fat storage due to aging related metabolic slowdown. So, as I said, this is presented as empirical evidence. I can't really offer any papers or research on the subject, because frankly it's very sensitive and researchers don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. TL;DR, a lot of people get the all-mighty shaft in terms of attempting to achieve visible lean-ness in the abdominal area.

For the work-out obsessed, there are certain training methods in which your body typically recovers in 36 hours. To maximize volume, the crazier of us would workout 8 am one morning and 8pm the following day, then take the next day off before returning to it. But yeah, other than scheduling, there is no real benefit to working out at the same time every day.

EAS arsenic levels are suprising. The rest of them, the only ones that go above recommended daily levels are the ones I wouldn't touch in the first place... $&*% muscle milk...

Considering the wide wide range of athletic body types that exist, stating that your body type IS athletic... doesn't actually say much about you. A marathoner is 'athletic'... so is the 350 lb offensive lineman in football... As far as dating sights are concerned, any girl looking at a profile saying 'athletic' is probably expecting a six pack and Big Biceps . Anyone who puts any serious consideration into someone's stated 'body type' is probably two crayons short of a box. Not to be judging, but come on... Talk, see a picture/meet, yes/no move on...

I'm pretty sure any person who is obese is at a heightened risk for heart attacks period. High fat diets may be particularly dangerous for this specific population because of abnormally high triglyceride counts from bodily oxidation of both incoming fat and body fat.

Absolutely! That's why I think it can be revolutionary; while protein is usually considered by far the most important macro to pay attention to, I don't think anyone has ever suggested a system whereby protein isn't even accounted for in metabolic rate. But the question becomes, how to appropriately determine optimum protein intake then? If I were to hazard a guess at optimum intake, then I would say the general 1g/lb LBM, but the fact that you should take a break every 6-8 weeks will allow your body to catch up on any protein deficit created by inadequate consumption. I know it's been my experience, as well as many others, to take a diet/training break, gain a couple pounds (yes even correcting for glycogen/water), and then come back to the gym stronger than ever. Whether this component is neural or mechanical in nature is unclear (I would think a little bit of both), but if my guess were correct, you could bump protein intake even higher and then be able to continue training without a break for a longer period of time before seeing symptoms of over training. Also like I said, very low fuel intake levels tends to FORCE the body to steal protein anyways. PSMF's require a very high protein intake simply due to the fact that some protein MUST be converted to glucose for sustained fuel consumption by the brain (this only occurs after 1-2 weeks of ketosis, but anyway). However, Lyle McDonald has performed that research for us, and we can probably determine an absolute best number for protein intake in that category. Interest in ketogenesis & PSMFs is low on NF though, so I guess we can negate that. I'm also far from criticizing your work for having a small population. I merely think this data should be presented to someone who DOES have access to the tools necessary to do a full fledged research study on the subject. One last thing: as far as cardio is concerned, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. My misgivings for lower BF% populations may be largely fixed by manipulation of the other macros, which is what some of the cycling that I've done is aimed towards doing. LISS absolutely is only useful in large quantities for losing fat in general, but HIIT and MISS (lol) tend to deplete more glycogen, which I think has it's place when dieting down to low levels. The gist of it is that the body uses fuel in proportion to what it has, correct? Therefore, deplete yourself of glycogen, body is forced to use more fat (possibly protein). High-rep weight training will deplete muscles very well, and HIIT/MISS will deplete liver glycogen. This process is cycled to prevent too much protein usage vs fat, but the way it's been set-up, I'd have a day where I ate nearly 5000 calories, most of them carbs, and not gain any fat, simply because the body is far too pre-occupied with restoring glycogen to normal. But yeah, as far as the fighting back, it will, absolutely... fat utilization is indeed a function of fat volume due mostly to the effects of dropping leptin levels. Leptin is responsible for a lot of energy expenditure/storage in the body, but unfortunately, it's mostly manufactured by.... fat cells. Laaaaaame. Edit @Joey: the problem is that, what if your goal is less than 10% (guy) or 17% (girl)? You can browse through most any fitness forum and find examples of people struggling mightily to get down to that level. I like the idea of a clean cut, but the point I was trying to make is that the strategy may not work so well once you achieve a low enough level. What level is that? All eyes on Waldo now...

You had Chuck Norris hiding in your beard, didn't you? All the same, awesome pull man!

Can you tell by the pixels?

I dunnooooo Waldo just changed his pic to his kid and he's FREAKIN ADORABLE.

My god Waldo. Absolutely astounding. Taking what you first wrote on your blog and expanding it into this... I am incredibly intrigued. Spez, Steve, alecto, SOMEONE sticky this! Mind is racing right now with the possibilities. If this rule holds true, even for the boundary conditions you've set, the applications on this data are huge. Some questions I do have: - while the numbers did line up nicely, you did stop looking for further information when you found the correlation, which means that the results could potentially be biased. Confirmation with a bod-pod and/or hydrostatic weighing would greatly increase my confidence in your data. - Related to this, it is known that body-fat patterns change from person to person, and so your results may not be typical for other races, nor even females potentially. Convincing some researchers to gather a population base of much greater than n=1 could potentially give us a very accurate method for tracking weight loss, as well as solid guidelines on how to do so. - To what extent can we widen the boundary conditions? Clearly things change when we look at PSMF type dieting, and I'd have to believe that astoundingly high intake levels of protein will change it as well (beyond the already accepted downsides of extremely high protein intake; read up on rabbit starvation for more info). Potentially, this could change the recommendations for maximal fat loss from following a PSMF to include a specific amount of other nutrients. Not only that, but much more clearly defined recommendations for protein intake based on activity levels can probably be gathered. - How much does the game really change when you get to lower BF%? Waldo hasn't quite reached that point yet, and obviously continuing to lose fat at the rate he has will have negative consequences, and the body *will* fight back in some way eventually - + 10 million more questions once I re and re-read this sucker a few more times. You sir have won the internetz. My hat is off to you.

Did you accidentally get them signed up on one based in Alabama?

But not everyone looks like the people from wall-e. While limiting intake of calorically dense food makes sense for people in a dire situation as such makes sense, it makes far less for people maintaining their body weight at a healthy level already. At which point moderation becomes the key.

Are you getting stronger? You didn't really describe a problem in any of this Unless you aren't getting stronger.

Crunches don't kill your back. Improperly done crunches kill your back. A lot of people do it by rounding the back upwards, when what you really want is hip flexion. A good cue is to keep your eyes up and 'elevate the chest'. This will keep your lower back straight and allow you to dynamically engage the abdominals without destroying the lordotic curve. Although I mostly agree with wildross. If you feel you need extra work for the abs, by all means.

... Aaaaaaaaaaaaand that's enough internet for the day... week... year...

Hey m00se, it's like you said; you put a LOT of focus on losing fat. While you can gain strength on a calorie deficit diet, you won't gain mass really. It's just physiologically opposite reactions. If I recall correctly, you only really started focusing on the mass gain about two months ago. All the same, I'm basing my calculations on things said by people way smarter than me. So really, assuming newbie status, thats a pound over the first two months, and then when you started bulking, 2 pounds a month. Look over the models presented on that page and you will probably agree with the numbers I came up with. This is just being realistic bud. At the same time, it's still awesome, awesome, awesome progress. Realistically, the best shape of your life would be weighing around 220 with 200 LBM. With my best guesstimate, another 10 pounds of lean mass will come 'relatively' easy, if you train properly and eat properly. You won't grow 'fast', but you'll grow. That'll take up another year or so, and then rates will slow down. Now this is just me, but if you find yourself at a plateau already, you might want to consider adding a crapload of carbs back in. If your heart is set on primal/paleo, that's a lotta taters bud. But you need it to fuel the energy system typically used in heavy lifting.

Wait, is it a 5k obstacle run? Meh, it shouldn't affect your training either way I guess... I'll see myself out

ETF does make some good points. I see plenty of posts in primal/paleo from people that aren't very well informed as to what the plethora of possible choices are. Sometimes, a non-paleo point of view is probably warranted, despite the presence of a question in the paleo section. In the end, this is a problem for Spezzy and Steve to worry about, not us common forum-ers. As we've discovered, it simply fosters bad blood and emotions between peers. Honestly, I think that, potentially, we might do better for the newer ones amongst us if they weren't even introduced to paleo vs non-paleo until they've had a fair glance at everything that is offered... As such, all newb questions should be directed to the general boards, so that we don't have members of one guild vs the other feeling like they need to venture into the other's board in order to respond to a question that, technically, should be open ended. But like I said, impartialness of the board isn't our problem. Hope you're still reading this thread Kamb!

One more post to say... I thought I recognized Darryl from somewhere else! BOONDOCK SAINTS!!!!1!11!! He is officially twice as awesome as I originally believed.

Just finished watching up to snuff last night! I have to say... wowwwwwwwwwww My problem with the show as of now though: I was so hoping they'd be out of expendable peeps to kill. With the prison though, guaranteed they find some meat to toss to the zombies >.< It's just so painful knowing that most of the characters pretty much can't die (well until a point. Lori, I'm lookin right atcha) That being said... so awesome. so very awesome. I'm leaning towards Merl being involved with the governor and either totally fucking everyone over or turning into a martyr... Also, for the but what about the baby? Remember how it was explained that the zombies were essentially animals? Only the spinal cord is still active, meaning that you need to be alive long enough for those instincts to exist in the first place. No baby in utero, infected or not, is gonna have a clue about survival. Aborted babeh would have the crazy zombie eyes and that's about it.

Cholesterol tends to normalize with appropriate levels of body fat anyways... unless your diet is absolutely horrendous.

That's ok guys. Me n iced will be over here having our OWN group hug, amirite? ... Right?

Can't believe I missed all the action! One more group hug?

Focus on slow movement and extending as much as you can at the top for maximal contraction force. Letting your rubber band go slowly will prevent elastic energy from being converted into work. Mind you that this is all in favor of trying to create bigger calves. For power production (running, jumping, etc), calves and heel aren't usually your limiting factor, so it's no worry. Technically, the best way to build your calves is to be obese... they respond much better to chronic stress than acute. It actually makes previously obese people easy to spot... just check out the size of their calves... for a good example of this, look at before/after pictures of Biggest Loser competitors and check out dem legs.

Varicose veins are a prime indicator of pooling as well.